As my wife (the biggest fan in our household) would say there's nothing like a baseball movie in the middle of winter. We watched a rental last night and thoroughly enjoyed it. The film felt a little anti-climatic after the long stretch of wins but it closed off nicely. I didn't know much about the film and (to me) the trailer was a little misleading.

I am not a baseball fan by any stretch of the imagination (I don't watch it or follow it and it generally annoys me). I did enjoy the movie tremendously though.

I didn't know much going in, other than that it was about someone using these new-fangled things called computers to pick players, and was expecting it to be based in the late 80's/early 90's or something. I was surprised to see it was 2002.

I am not a baseball fan by any stretch of the imagination (I don't watch it or follow it and it generally annoys me). I did enjoy the movie tremendously though.

I didn't know much going in, other than that it was about someone using these new-fangled things called computers to pick players, and was expecting it to be based in the late 80's/early 90's or something. I was surprised to see it was 2002.

It's true in all pro sports, but more so in baseball. Which is that the most common approach is to buy the "best" team, which leaves poor teams in the dust and results in insanely huge budgets. The truth is that the most expensive roster has no more chance of fielding a winning team than the least expensive - IF the management knows what it's doing.

In that year, the A's had the same stats as the Yankees and broke the record for most consecutive wins on a fraction of the Yankees' budget. But as Billy Beane was fond of saying: it's the last game of the season that gets remembered, not what happened before.

They weren't so much using computers to choose players as they were using stats. That is: who gets on base the most? They didn't have to hit home runs or even doubles, they just had to get on base by whatever means possible. It's also called "small ball" and it works. Many of the famous power-house hitters don't actually get on base that often, yet they command the biggest paychecks. But if you can get a pitcher to walk you, it's just as good as a hit.

I started to watch it yesterday but it was too late I only saw the first half. What an amazing film. I'm pretty sure this will end up as one of my favorites from last year. Great performances, story, pacing, everything. I like that kind of movies where we can see good actors act, and shine in their roles. I'm probably going to watch it from the start again with my wife tonight.

__________Nicolas.

"Music expresses that which cannot be said and on which it is impossible to be silent."- Victor Hugo.

Great flick. Probably up there with one of the best from 2011. Pacing, characters, and storyline were great - thought the ending was perfect as well. Not sure how I felt about PSH playing Art Howe, but man, Art Howe must have really loved this movie. Media led us to believe that he was the main reason these guys were winning, yet the movie totally knocks that down.

Regarding the Social Network references above, it's funny cause I still haven't seen it, and I really don't want to, yet I'm a fan of Fincher. It was on TV some days ago so I saw a few scenes, I hate the characters, I have no sympathy for Eisenberg, I'm almost certain I will never enjoy that movie. Do I need to mention that I profoundly hate facebook too? And yes I know it's not 'a movie about facebook'... I just don't care about these people, whether it's in real life or in a movie... Anyways... Back to Moneyball, I'm also curious to see Hill's performance, apparently excellent as well. Up until now I was putting him in the same category as another Seth Rogen, sort of. From what I've read about the movie, I'm glad I was wrong.

I've head the same "baggage's" before I saw The Social Network, and ended up liking it. I actually regarded Hill even lower the Rogen, and he was one of the reason I didn't have any interest to see this film. It is on my list now.

Watched this Saturday night on BD. Little to add except to agree with all the positive comments. Another really great movie and story from last year. The past couple of years have been excellent for movie watching, IMO.

Pitt gets better and better. My wife said his acting is a lot like Robert Redford as he aged.

PSH standing in the office with his hands tucked into his waist had me laughing because so many managers do exactly that. He also looked the part and reminded me of Don Zimmer when Don was younger and 100+ pounds lighter.

Watched this Saturday night on BD. Little to add except to agree with all the positive comments. Another really great movie and story from last year. The past couple of years have been excellent for movie watching, IMO.

Pitt gets better and better. My wife said his acting is a lot like Robert Redford as he aged.

PSH standing in the office with his hands tucked into his waist had me laughing because so many managers do exactly that. He also looked the part and reminded me of Don Zimmer when Don was younger and 100+ pounds lighter.

Ah crap....do I HAVE to put this in my queue?
Modern baseball, with all its scandals, disgusts me beyond the beyond.

It was an ok movie. The first half was very good and I thought it lagged a bit after that. BP was good and did remind me of Robert Redford but did he HAVE to be eating all the time? After a while we were more cracking up on the gimmick of him eating rather than the movie.

I didn't know much going in, other than that it was about someone using these new-fangled things called computers to pick players, and was expecting it to be based in the late 80's/early 90's or something. I was surprised to see it was 2002.

The thing about the baseball establishment is that they're VERY reluctant to go against what was done since the dawn of the "live ball" era (around the time Babe Ruth got his start.) So innovations that other sports adopted in the 90s took about a decade or two to roll around. That's what all those scenes with Beane butting against the scouts and his manager were for.

Ironically, the principles of Moneyball were the norm in the "dead ball" era, where dudes like Ty Cobb and Nap Lajoie, who didn't hit a huge number of home runs but got on base a LOT, ruled the roost. Then Ruth came along and "HOMERS ARE NEET!" and that was that for the next eight decades, with a few exceptions here and there (60s Dodgers, etc., who did it more because the stadium was more conducive to it rather than any payroll concerns.)

Second it. And it even had a "Redford film" kind of feel to it. Watched it last night as well. Wasn't quite what I expected but that's not necessarily a bad thing. What was really good about this movie (and the performances) is how deep the baseball goes. As a baseball guy, I picked up on so many very real nuances (like Beane's conversation with David Justice in the batting cage) that really pinpointed personal aspects of the business side of the game. This movie is filled with this from beginning to end. Even considering the accolades this movie (and actors) has received, this is still a very underrated achievement.

Just caught this and yes it is a good film not great. I heard so many accolades about this film, I was expecting to be blown away which I wasn't. Unfortunately, the bar/bias was set too high before watching this. They did use real footage at times but I think they should have used more. In the conclusion they mention how the Red Sox won and how Billy Beane is still the GM, they should also mention how Oakland is doing since.

I just watched this one last week. I hadn't read any of the comments regarding Robert Redford, so I wasn't influenced by the discussion but immediately thought the same thing, that he's kind of become Robert Redford when Redford was that age.

Anyway, the movie is excellent, and I'm not into sports at all. And yeh, Hill does an excellent job. His character is very much the silent type, but he does it well. And it also proves that you can have a compelling story without a love story involved (which is often just gratuitously grafted on if the story won't naturally contain one because so many people believer every movie has to have one.)

I was first attracted to this movie to the premise that, hey even the C-players have their places and fill a role, that's up-lifting, then as the movie progresses, am thinking, so now players are treated as statistics to be traded like commodities? down!, then at the end I saw the DVD extra commentaries that says, now that everybody knows the trick, it no longer benefit the poor teams anymore! down^2

I'd like the interviewer to ask Billy, so... any regrets not taking the 11 million?

They did in a way. They said he's still chasing that championship, and by inference, so is Oakland. I think that's actually a strong statement to make, rather than saying that Oakland has had a couple of division titles since, but otherwise has hovered around .500 most years.